New skis: I must do it right this time! (Was: new tools for this coming winter)

I've found what Paul says even applies to professional purchases, where
you give the ski length, your weight and maybe the desired % flex and
the head nordic person at the U.S. company warehouse picks out the skis
at a substantial discount, but no returns (except for defect). I've had
one excellent pick (Donna at Garmont when they were importing Peltonen),
one still up in the air and one seriously poor choice (+ a bad ski
design). I'm using Zach this time because I sense that his experience,
testing, knowledge of technique and obsessive attention to developing
good measurement techniques stand a good chance of a happier ending than
I've found so far in ski shops. However, it does help him or any good
fitter for the customer to have used and demo'd some different brand
skis and possess a good enough sense of their technique (a video is
invaluable) to have an intelligent discussion of possible choices.

Gene

Norski wrote:

The Fischer shops here in the midwest, such as 'ABR Ski Trails' in Ironwood,
MI, 'New Moon' in Hayward, WI. and 'Ski Hut' in Duluth, MN. have demo skis
and boots you can try. The trails are near by to test. If you'd like to try
skis for several days, they also have rental skis available. Some of the
bigger races, such as the Birkie, have an expo and Fischer, along with the
other companies have equipment demos.
The demos, expos or rental could help you narrow down the length you'd feel
the most comfortable on.
Zach is right, once you have an idea of what you'd like, it is best to go
with a reputable dealer with a large stock of skis and have the skis fitted
to you using a bench or Zach's ski picking service.
I learned the hard way over 20+ years of racing, trying to 'save money'
purchasing discounted skis at shops going out of business, end of year close
outs and such. The very best skis and bindings cost about $550. A good pair
of skis that fit can last 10 years of racing. That works out to $55.00 for a
whole year of enjoyment.
Most of the shops these days are really honest. I've been in some that would
not sell me a pair of skis, as they said they didn't have any that fit.

--
Paul Haltvick
Bay Design and Build - LLC
Ashland, WI

I'd probably say the best route is if you can have someone like Zach
have an order in hand when he goes to the Fischer warehouse and pull a
pair for you. Of course Zach's time is worth some money. Another route
is to find a knownledgable shop employee (or owner) that has a good
selection, and have them pick out a pair. Picking the shop is kind of
like interviewing for a ski selector.

I've had my skis picked at the warehouse based only on my weight for
probably the last 10 years. Peltonen was never able to get it right for
classic skis, and they were pretty good for skate skis. Fischer has
been excellent with each of their picks for me, both classic and skate.
I have each of my pairs checked at the local level, and I get the "this
is a good ski for ..." and generally that matches what I asked for. I
believe that you could ask the shop to order a pair for you (if they
don't have the proper pair in stock) and probably get a pretty good set
of Fischers just based on your weight.

Jay Wenner

Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-) I would reverse your statement
and say that picking the ski selector is the basis for picking the
shop. Not all selectors at reputable shops are quite created equal,
experience notwithstanding. It's a bit of trial and error, which can be
costly and frustrating. Also, getting into the warehouse early is
essential to getting a "perfect" pair, but that's probably not an option
for most people. I didn't get my request into Fischer until early Nov
last year and by then the stock was significantly depleted. They
selected a pair of Skatecuts enough under the requested % to be of
concern, but they do seem to love soft snow. Finn Sisu looked at them
and just shook their heads, but said you never know. BTW, Zach's time
includes the grind.

Gene


"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote:

I'd probably say the best route is if you can have someone like Zach
have an order in hand when he goes to the Fischer warehouse and pull a
pair for you. Of course Zach's time is worth some money. Another route
is to find a knownledgable shop employee (or owner) that has a good
selection, and have them pick out a pair. Picking the shop is kind of
like interviewing for a ski selector.

I've had my skis picked at the warehouse based only on my weight for
probably the last 10 years. Peltonen was never able to get it right for
classic skis, and they were pretty good for skate skis. Fischer has
been excellent with each of their picks for me, both classic and skate.
I have each of my pairs checked at the local level, and I get the "this
is a good ski for ..." and generally that matches what I asked for. I
believe that you could ask the shop to order a pair for you (if they
don't have the proper pair in stock) and probably get a pretty good set
of Fischers just based on your weight.

I don't believe there is "the perfect" pair. Some at better for this
and some better for that, kind of like picking the perfect car.

Jay, born a pain

Geno writes: Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-)

I was talking with Peter Ashley (head mucky much at Fischer) and told
him how Peltonen would send classic skis which were so far off that it
was like they laughed at trying to get classic skis without stepping on
them, and they were grabbing a pair for me to trade out on a local
level. OTOH, I was really surprised how well the Fischers fit (from the
factory). Peter said he has had great luck fitting a bunch of college
guys based simply on their weight, and that he wouldn't ship out
anything that flexed out at 60% of their weight. Generally the target
was 55%. (I used to target 70-75% and some guys will go to 100% and
over, so 55% is a surprising number.) Some may laugh, but the flex
numbers work pretty well.

Jay

It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from different
manufacturers often describe very different measurements. Even using the
exact same testing system, those flex numbers will be different across
manufacturers and even between ski models made by a specific manufacturer.
So, the 60% guideline might work really well for a certain type of classic
ski from Fischer, but possibly not from a different model and definitely not
for a different brand of ski. So when you hear flex numbers tossed around,
make sure that you look closely at what they mean and that they are
comparing apples to apples. Just because a different brand selects their
skis based on 100% of the skiers weight, does not mean that the skis are 40%
stiffer than the Fischers that are selected at 60%.

As examples of this, Fischer's classic skis are generally made in two
types of mold: the 812 is the stock plus/cold ski that has been in
production for 4 years (I think) and the 902 is the new "wet" ski. These
skis have very different characteristics and need to be selected in
different flex ranges. The World Cup skiers have some Fischer skate skis
(V9 mold) that tend to flex very stiff (175% of body weight) and a new
soft-track ski (300 mold) that flexes around 85% of the skier's body weight.
The V9 is designed for the very hard track conditions seen on the World Cup
and the 300 is designed for powder. Both skis do very well for their
specific conditions, but have extremely different "flexes".

So, don't take those numbers to be anything magical, especially when
comparing between brands of skis. They are probably more a measure of the
different methods employed by different companies and the differences in ski
construction.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, because I agree that there are
definitely some brands out there that have tended to advocate picking skis
that were much too stiff. But you can't compare flex numbers by themselves
to compare the "softness" of one brand or model vs another. You need to
look at the overall construction and as always, the best way to tell the
differences between skis is to ski on them.

-Nathan


"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geno writes: Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-)

I was talking with Peter Ashley (head mucky much at Fischer) and told
him how Peltonen would send classic skis which were so far off that it
was like they laughed at trying to get classic skis without stepping on
them, and they were grabbing a pair for me to trade out on a local
level. OTOH, I was really surprised how well the Fischers fit (from the
factory). Peter said he has had great luck fitting a bunch of college
guys based simply on their weight, and that he wouldn't ship out
anything that flexed out at 60% of their weight. Generally the target
was 55%. (I used to target 70-75% and some guys will go to 100% and
over, so 55% is a surprising number.) Some may laugh, but the flex
numbers work pretty well.

Jay

Nathan writes: It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from
different
manufacturers often describe very different measurements.

I guess I assumed incorrectly the numbers represent a closing of the
ski to a certain gap. I realize people can measure the closure at
different points aong the pocket, and different flexes have an effect,
but it's still seems surprising to me that the numbers can vary so much
when the fitting goal should be about the same.

BTW, my classics glide (and kick) well, so I'm not questioning the 55%
figure from Fischer.

Jay Wenner

Hi Jay,

Yes, it would seem simple enough, but there is not really a "standard"
measurement or way to measure it. Different companies use different devices
and have different specifications for the tests. I think Fischer uses 0.1mm
and applies the force 8cm behind the balance point. Other companies may use
different specifications or apply force differently...

Nathan

"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nathan writes: It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from
different
manufacturers often describe very different measurements.

I guess I assumed incorrectly the numbers represent a closing of the
ski to a certain gap. I realize people can measure the closure at
different points aong the pocket, and different flexes have an effect,
but it's still seems surprising to me that the numbers can vary so much
when the fitting goal should be about the same.

BTW, my classics glide (and kick) well, so I'm not questioning the 55%
figure from Fischer.

Jay Wenner

Just got back after a week of backpacking/scrambling in the High
Sierras. Some passes are still under 3+ feet of snow.

Thanks a lot, guys, for the great responses. I will definitely check
the factory picking option. In fact, I did not know this route exists:
I thought it's only for the sponsored ones.

Nathan raises some really important points about ski flex. It's
important to understand that there are huge variations in both ski
design and in flex measurement techniques. In combination these
variables make it really impossible to, for instance, compare a Fischer
factory flex number with an Atomic factory flex number. Even when I'm
measuring different skis from different companies using the same
protocol on my flex tester the "closing flex" is the least important
measurement that I make. It's much more important to understand how the
ski reacts to active loading than the what static load closes the ski
to a given residual camber. So - be very careful about putting too much
stake in the factory flex numbers, especially when it comes to
comparing between brands.

I also want to add a comment to what Nathan said about the various
"special" skis that world cup skiers use. I imagine that there will be
a handful of people out there scouring the world for a pair of 300s now
that the mold number is in circulation! It's important to understand
and appreciate how Fischer conducts their R&D of new and different ski
constructions. The basic fact is that ALL companies make special skis
that aren't available to the consumer market. All companies, that is,
that have the production capacity to test different constructions. Of
the companies that I work with Fischer is the most transparent in their
development process. We actually get to see what they're trying, and
what world cup skiers are using from time to time. This can cause some
headaches on the retail end of things because word gets out that there
are different skis available if you're good enough or well-connected
enough.

Competition testing is important. I know for myself that a new grind
isn't ready for the market until it's been successfully tested in
competition. Fischer isn't about to launch a product without a lot of
information and feedback from their stable of test pilots (world cup
racers). That doesn't mean that these skis are always better than
what's available to the public. All companies want to put their best
face forward. Sometimes we, the public, feel that the decisions that
get made aren't as good as they could be. For instance, I was never a
fan of the skatecut, or the wide-tipped Atomic Beta. But I think it's
probably a bit cynical to chalk all such products up to marketing. In
fact, the real "holy grail" for ski design is a ski that can handle the
broadest possible range of conditions and be race-worthy in all of
them.

The problem with the special world cup skis is that they're usually
pretty specialized in application. At least, they start out that way.
For instance, the 902 - just released as the Wet classic ski - started
life as a dedicated slush ski for strictly sloppy conditions. As
Fischer made modifications based on feedback skiers started using the
ski in a wider range of conditions, and it became apparent that they
had a very viable race ski. And now it's on the market. Right now the
skis that Nathan mentioned are a ways away from being market worthy.
The V9s appear to be a hit-or-miss proposition. Eli Brown and I shared
a "R&D fleet" of special construction skis last year. We had one pair
of V9s in the fleet that got raced everywhere we had it, by a wide
variety of skiers. Another pair rarely if ever got used because it
wasn't as good. The things seem to be hard to control in production and
there is little assurance that a correctly fit ski will be good. The
300s are also an interesting ski, but an even newer idea. The ski seems
to be designed for soft snow, but some of the Austrian Fischer guys
were touting it as a hard snow ski last year. Kris Freeman had a pair
last year (they're in my shop right now) that are fit WAY stiffer than
my analysis suggests they're designed for. But he had his best World
Cup finish on them last year. Now he's got a pair that are about 30%
softer than last year's pair that he seems to be liking in new Zealand.
Nobody, not even Fischer race service people, know enough about these
skis to know how best to fit them.

When I'm picking skis I can be very confident with the results I'm
going to get from the standard production models. I can pick a 610 for
soft snow, or I can pick one for hard snow. Fischer has dialed that ski
in to the point that it can do a lot. A few years ago I wasn't as
confident of that. If I were picking V9s for consumers right now they'd
come with no guarantees. I actually got ahold of a pair last year as
part of a complicated trade - I thought they'd be great hard snow skis.
They suck. Actually they seem best in softer slushy stuff. I don't know
why. Mike Wynn has them right now - I gave them to him to try to make
sense of at the end of last year. Actually, I think I said something
like "take these out to Crandall Park when it's really icy and see how
many bones you break".

So it's fun getting to see how the development process works, and I
love working with Fischer because of their willingness to share
information and show what they're playing with. However, I would
caution people not to get too excited about the new constructions
before they're well tested. When they're ready for the market I can
pretty well bet we'll see them on the market. In the meantime, just ask
Nathan how he liked the V9s he used at the Birkie a couple of years
ago!

Zach